Skip to main content

You can't open a car with a coat hanger any more, Val.

Stand Up Guys
(2012)

Al Pacino’s aging con is released from prison after 28 years. Best pal Christopher Walken is there to meet him, charged with the task of greasing him. Fisher Stevens’ bittersweet dramedy is (mostly) amiable but inconsequential, dragged down by a charmless script. If the movie just about sustains interest, it’s by virtue its status as the (belated) first ever pairing of these former screen titans.


Now the likes of Arnie and Sly are regular joint-headliners, the prospect of movie legends finally trading quips and blows doesn’t quite hold the anticipation it once did. It took De Niro and Pacino the best part of 20 years before they shared a coffee in Michael Mann’s Heat. When they reteamed another decade later, no one could have given a shit (it doesn’t help that Righteous Kill isn’t all that). Often the problem encountered is one of making the material withstand the star power (sometimes it’s merely that the star power is no longer so starry). De Niro, Brando and Norton together sounded unmissable, but The Score is really only so-so. And most of that so-so is to do with seeing them together. So it is with Stand Up Guys.


If Christopher Walken is a bastion of reliability, often especially when the material isn’t up to snuff, the same can’t be said of Pacino. I’d much rather watch Al on autopilot than De Niro, but it’s the difference between an actor who is permanently amped up and one who can barely stay awake. There is little nuance to a performance from either of them these days and, particularly in Pacino’s case, the increased exposure and lack of discernment in choosing projects has diminished his stature; he has no compunction about starring opposite Adam Sandler in drag or indulging in bargain basement (extended) stiffy gags. There’s something disappointingly dishevelled about him here, as he gives off a seedy, unkempt, Albert Steptoe vibe. Still, for a guy in his early-70s he remains remarkably vital. And, even given his lost lustre, it remains a small thrill to see him and Walken sharing obvious chemistry even in wholly unremarkable material.


Pacino has a night of freedom before Walken has to put a bullet in his head, so naturally they get up to all sorts of adventures. Unfortunately first-timer Noah Haidle’s script comes up short not only the inventive scenarios front, it also settles on all the most over-used ones. If Walken manages to imbue a sense of melancholy into his every scene, Pacino is called upon to snort prescription meds and swallow half a bottle of Viagra. And visit a brothel. And sort out some local wise guys. Most insensitive and ill considered is their encounter with a gang rape victim who seems remarkably untraumatised (it’s all okay you see, as she gets to take revenge on the rapists’ nuts with a baseball bat).


Although the poster would have you believe this is a triple act, Alan Arkin’s role is that of supporting actor. He’s magnificent, though, and the picture really steps up a gear when he’s riffing with Walken and Pacino. More than the other two, Arkin’s had a great selection of roles in the 21st century, after not really having much of a profile during the ‘80s and  ‘90s.


The supporting cast includes one of those over-used actors as the villain, Mark Margolis (most visible across three seasons of Breaking Bad). He shows up, chews scenery, leaves. Julianne Margulies appears for a couple of minutes as Arkin’s daughter. Fisher Stevens, best known for a playing a slightly dodgy Indian stereotype in Short Circuit, is the director on his sophomore feature. If the cast refer to him to as an actor’s director, it’s a nice way of saying he doesn’t have much stylistic sense about him. If this means the attention is all on the actors, it has the side effect of exposing the script’s deficiencies to the harsh light of day. At its best the affair feels like something of a throwback picture. Unfortunately that also extends to the almost-‘80s movie checklist of larks these guys get mixed up in (washed through a post-Judd Apatow gross-out filter).


I mentally linked this to Last Vegas when both were in production, as both feature a medley of old-timers on a jaunt. Stand Up Guys’ premise is much closer to that of In Bruges, however. Which I’m sure could have done with a dose of Christopher Walken (what movie couldn’t, and Bruges director Martin McDonagh subsequently used to great effect him in Seven Psychopaths), but was pretty much perfect. Stand Up Guys is a long way from greatness, and has the temerity to shamelessly rip off They Live’s classic line of dialogue (several times). But, if you have fairly low expectations, you could do worse than seeing this trio struggle valiantly to make a silk purse out of a soiled script.


***

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

I think you’re some kind of deviated prevert.

Dr. Strangelove  or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) (SPOILERS) Kubrick’s masterpiece satire of mutually-assured destruction. Or is it? Not the masterpiece bit, because that’s a given. Rather, is all it’s really about the threat of nuclear holocaust? While that’s obviously quite sufficient, all the director’s films are suggested to have, in popular alt-readings, something else going on under the hood, be it exposing the ways of Elite paedophilia ( Lolita , Eyes Wide Shut ), MKUltra programming ( A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket ), transhumanism and the threat of imminent AI overlords ( 2001: A Space Odyssey ), and most of the aforementioned and more besides (the all-purpose smorgasbord that is The Shining ). Even Barry Lyndon has been posited to exist in a post-reset-history world. Could Kubrick be talking about something else as well in Dr. Strangelove ?